Month: June 2008

There have been many news stories lately about Obama’s housing mishaps (a very good Boston Globe article), and Tony Rezko. None of the stories or analyses have the story quite right or complete.

We at Big Pink have been covering the Rezko story since before just about anyone else knew what a Rezko was so we have a fairly good understanding of Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s relationships and travails. (We’ll devote today and tomorrow to helping Tony Rezko and later we will explore the Culture of Corruption which surrounds and is so ably represented by Barack Obama.)

We also understand that at the moment poor Tony Rezko is in jail, awaiting a trip to prison after he is sentenced on September 3, 2008. At the moment Tony does not have internet access but perhaps familiy members are trolling the internet (Tony does have young adult sons) and they can relate what we post to poor Tony.

Tony is about to realize, if he has not already, that:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

On June 17th of this year we wrote the fourth installment of REZKO for Dummies. This fourth installment was prompted by the conviction of Antoin “Tony” Rezko on 16 counts of various crimes in federal court. Also news began to seep out about certain behind the scenes developments of the Rezko trial and we wanted to comment on those developments. One of the developments was the release of a letter Rezko had earlier written to the judge in the case.

We noted in REZKO for Dummies, Part IV that Rezko faces a maximum 300 years in prison, and a potentially huge financial penalty of several million dollars. We noted that Rezko, in his letter to the judge, said about the prosecutors “They are pressuring me to tell them the ‘wrong’ things that I supposedly know about Governor Blagojevich and Senator Obama.” In REZKO for Dummies, Part IV, we quoted extensively from the Obama related portion of the letter Rezko wrote to the judge. Most of the commentary on blogs and news stories focused on the Obama related section. Very few commentators however focused on the earlier part of Rezko’s letter. We will.

In a letter to a judge publicized last week, political fund-raiser Tony Rezko said “overzealous” prosecutors pressured him to tell them “the wrong things” about presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

But that letter appears to be misleading, given that Rezko never submitted to an interview with federal prosecutors or any federal investigators, sources said.

Rezko’s lawyer, Joseph Duffy, said Rezko never sat down for an interview and was never pressured directly, or indirectly, through Duffy, to talk about Obama, Gov. Blagojevich — or anyone else.

Odd isn’t it? In the very good, very interesting Sun-Times article Joe Duffy – Rezko’s lawyer – is basically calling poor Tony a LIAR. That is strange behavior. The lawyer is calling his client a liar in a major newspaper. It’s almost as if Joe Duffy is more interested in protecting Obama and Blagojevich than his own client. Odd.

“Your honor, the prosecutors have been overzealous in pursuing a crime that never happened,” Rezko said. “They are pressuring me to tell them the wrong things that I supposedly know about Gov. Blagojevich and Senator Barack Obama.”

Sources say Rezko believed he was put in jail just before his trial as a tactic to get him to flip.

Rezko, 52, of Wilmette, was convicted of far-reaching fraud tied to state deals. He was a longtime fund-raiser to Blagojevich and Obama.

The letter sent a clear signal that Rezko was not interested in making a deal.

But Rezko’s situation changed dramatically after his June 4 conviction. He not only landed right back in jail, but faces significant prison time. Beyond that, Rezko still faces two other criminal trials.

If Rezko were to have a future change of heart, the note he sent could end up backfiring on him, legal observers say.

Former prosecutor Zachary Fardon noted that Scott Fawell, former chief of staff to Gov. George Ryan, wrote a similar letter, saying he wouldn’t make up lies about Ryan. Fawell was the star witness in Ryan’s trial.

“Do I think he could effectively be crossed on this letter? Yes,” Fardon said. “Does that mean they can’t call him or use him [as a witness]? No.”

A U.S. attorney’s spokesman had no comment.

It’s almost as if Joe Duffy has Obama’s interests at heart, not his client, poor Tony Rezko. Joe Duffy must remember Scott Fawell saying the same thing about his former employer, Governor of Illinois Ryan, before providing testimony that sent the corrupt governor of Illinois to prison.

It’s almost as if Duffy is trying to destroy the credibility of his client – even though his client is now not only convicted of serious crimes, faces what amounts to a life sentence, and faces more legal trials. This is strange behavior for a lawyer to display towards a client.

Earlier we focused on the section of the letter dealing with Obama. Today, let’s examine the opening section of the letter.

On January 17th, of 2007, I stood before you and took an oath to answer questions truthfully, and that is what I did. I told the trugh and nothing but the truth as I knew the facts then. In February, I was under tremendous pressure from my legal team to pay their fees, some pastdue but mostly in the form of advances so that they can continue to represent me. Eventually, I was able to obtain a loan of 3.5 million dollars from GMH after weeks of discussing numbers and communicating with David Gustman, Brian Smith, Joel Cooper (the three attorneys from Freeborn & Peters), Joe Duffy, Bill Ziegelmueller, and Howard Adelman. GMH was represented by attorney John Caruso of Kirkland & Ellis. The discussions took weeks of phone calls and countless emails.

It was determined by the attorneys involved that since the 3.5 million was a loan, we would be in compliance with the court’s orders. Therefore, we did not inform the court of the transaction. Your Honor, I am not a lawyer and I was not the one who interpreted the relevant scripts. Having said that, I understand that it remains my responsibility. I blame no one but myself, and I do apologize for not informing Your Honor of the transaction. I believe all of the above-mentioned individuals will reply similarly if asked. [snip]

The last four years have been very difficult for me. Since the Federal Government started investigating me, they have subpoenaed and interviewed hundreds of people in my life. Most of those people were my friends, associates, accountants, lenders, investors, employees, and ex-employees. My finances have been ruined and, as a result of the charges, I was forced out of what will be an incredible development on the South Side of Chicago. Everything I worked to build has crumbled in front of my eyes. The United States Attorney’s office employed many federal agencies to investigate me including the FBI, the IRS, the Postal Department, and the Labor Department. My attorneys were well aware of the scope of the investigation and advised me as to what the government was investigating and who the government was interviewing.

Poor Tony, he seems to have a lot of representation problems. It’s almost as if now that Tony has little political influence and even less money his attorney’s have, at least, lost interest in poor Tony.

It’s almost as if Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s attorneys are helping everyone in Chicago politics but Tony.

Watch your back Tony. You were smart to surrender yourself immediately after conviction to the slightly more protective custody of the Chicago jail system. You don’t want to become another Chicago suicide like Orlando Jones.

Remember Tony:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Enter McClurkin. He’s black, he’s popular, and gospel plays big with blacks in South Carolina, especially black evangelicals, and many of them openly and even more of them quietly loathe gays.

Bush masterfully tapped that homophobic sentiment in 2000 in part with McClurkin and even more masterfully in 2004 again with McClurkin and the top gun mega black preachers in Ohio and Florida. He tapped it so masterfully that Bush’s naked pander to gay bashing with the GOP spawned anti-gay marriage initiative in Ohio did much to win over a big chunk of black evangelical leaning voter to Bush. [snip]

This lesson isn’t lost on Obama. Desperate to snatch back some of the political ground with black voters that are slipping away from him and to Hillary; Bush’s black evangelical card seems like the perfect play. Obama wouldn’t dare go down the knock gay path, and risk drawing the inevitable heat for it, if he didn’t think as Bush that anti-gay sentiment is still wide and deep among many blacks.

This has already been nicknamed the “gay-bash” tour because three of the acts are on the record for rebuking the “gay lifestyle.” Mary Mary, the enormously popular duo, has a large gay following but has compared gays to murderers and prostitutes. Hezekiah Walker is a minister of the Pentecostal faith, traditionally inhospitable to gays, and, heads a Brooklyn mega-church well-known for its anti-gay views. Walker was also the subject of an unfounded gay rumor that has become urban legend.

Yes, Senator Obama, McClurkin is the perfect representative for your campaign. He thinks gays are a curse, that we need to be fixed, and that we’re trying to “kill children.” And I’m sure you’d have nothing to say about this if he were saying the same thing about African-Americans and Hillary were promoting him.

Gay-Americans and those who are “straight, not narrow” should remember:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

The McClurkin gay-bashing tour was not the first time Obama spoke flowery words about Gay-Americans then proceeded to insult and demean for his profit.

Obama has a long history of flim-flams with flowery words about Gay-Americans in front of friendly audiences but Obama has a gay problem:

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) has come under criticism from some in the gay and AIDS communities who objected to one of his responses in a debate last week and said it contributed to the ongoing stigma of HIV/AIDS in the African American community. [snip]

Obama suggested that, “One of the things that we have to overcome is a stigma that still exists in our communities.”

“We don’t talk about this. We don’t talk about it in the schools; sometimes, we don’t talk about it in the churches. It has been an aspect of, sometimes, homophobia,” he said, gesturing toward himself but seeming to speak about society in general.

While many gays were happy to hear Obama raise the issue of homophobia surrounding the response to AIDS, there was some consternation and mixed interpretations over what he said later. Biden had just taken the liberty of telling the audience that Obama had taken an HIV test. After Biden finished speaking, Obama asked for the floor.

“I just got to make clear, I got tested with Michelle, when we were in Kenya in Africa. I don’t want any confusion here about what’s going on,” said Obama, as the audience laughed and applauded. “I was tested with my wife, in public.” Moderator Tavis Smiley said he was “sure Michelle appreciates you clarifying that.” [snip]

“I think Biden was wrong in mentioning Obama’s getting tested,” said Ronald Johnson, deputy executive director of AIDS Action. “But Obama just needlessly played into some underlying homophobia in the black community. By saying he wanted to make it clear, he was saying, ‘I don’t want anybody to get the wrong idea.’ He was needlessly saying, in effect, ‘I’m not gay’ and getting a cheap laugh at the expense of gay men and black gay men.”

“I’m not going to war with him over it,” said Johnson, who is black, gay, and HIV-positive, “but you didn’t have to go down that track. He could have taken an opportunity to educate “ to say, ‘Everyone should get tested, but it’s a private matter. It’s for me to say.'” [snip]

“It shows how difficult it still is for our country’s leaders to talk about sex and HIV,” said Foreman. “It clearly makes everyone uncomfortable and nervous. Here we’re talking about this incredibly important subject and it becomes something to titter about.”

Obama spoke flowery words against stigmatizing Gay-Americans even as he proceeded to stigmatize Gay-Americans.

“I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama’s) request at the Waterfront restaurant,” said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. “And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn’t get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin.”

Today, of course, Obama’s people are backpedaling away from that account like crazy. His deputy campaign director, Steve Hildebrand, who lives with his partner as an openly gay man, calls it “a ridiculous story.” [snip]

But insiders at City Hall, both current and former members of Newsom’s staff, recall the incident well. And you can bet that Newsom hasn’t forgotten it either.

“He was pissed,” said one former staffer.

In fact, early last year, Newsom alluded to the incident in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Speaking to Reuters on Jan. 26, 2007, Newsom was asked about three potential Democratic candidates: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. [snip]

“One of the three Democrats you mentioned as presidential candidates, as God is my witness, will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me,” Newsom told Reuters, “even though I’ve done fundraisers for that particular person – not once, but twice – because of this issue.”

Newsom knows that all you get is flowery words from Obama, flowery words from the Obama campaign, but watch out because Obama cannot be trusted.

With Obama, like any three card monte flim flam man, watch what he does not what he says.

Michelle Obama bamboozled the Democratic? National Committee’s Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council this weekend. Miichelle Obama has flowery words to speak on behalf of her husband. Michelle said she wanted A world where together we work to reverse discriminatory laws like DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

When Bill Clinton sought to keep his 1992 campaign promise to end the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, he met strong resistance in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. Nunn, one of the most adamant opponents, led a series of hearings that were stacked against ending the prohibition. Critics noted that Nunn held more hearings about and spent more time on gays in the military than he had on the defense budget or even the Navy’s Tailhook sexual harassment scandal.

Already, the prospect of an Obama-Nunn ticket does not sit well with some prominent gay Democratic fundraisers. “It would without question irrevocably diminish my enthusiasm for the democratic ticket,” a longtime Clinton supporter told me in an e-mail. “Sam Nunn not only opposed [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people’s] rights to serve in the military, he viciously campaigned against it.”

Famously, Nunn led lawmakers on a tour of cramped submarine quarters and showers, an exercise that many viewed as a crass attempt to raise an ick factor of homosexuals living among straight troops. As if gay men and lesbians are devoid of discipline and incapable of defending this country.

NO Unity. NObama. NOvember.

This sentiment underscores a larger problem for Obama: how to reach Clinton’s backers to unify his party. Many women, particularly older women, are none too happy with what they view as Obama’s shabby treatment of her. In the final primary states, many blue-collar white voters told pollsters that if Obama topped the ticket they’d stay home or vote for Republican John McCain, who has wasted no time in trying to court them. If Obama taps Nunn, he could end up adding gay men and lesbians to the list of disgruntled Democrats. They might not vote for McCain, but they might very well stay home.

Gay-Americans must realize that Obama has gay-bashed in the past. If it comes down to getting votes from evangelical voters, socially conservative African-Americans or any constitutency group – Obama will betray Gay-Americans:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

So it was yesterday, in a not bitter, and not clingy, small town in New Hampshire.

Hillary, gorgeous and gracious in blue, demonstrated her amazing capacity to discuss issues of importance to Americans. Yesterday Hillary quoted Winston Churchill and welcomed the future, The Americans always get around to doing the right thing after trying nearly everything else. Obama is that “everything else”.

The previous night as well as yesterday, Hillary reminded Democrats that in the past 10 national elections Democrats have won only 3 times – twice with Bill Clinton. It’s called electability.

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

The Republicans know Obama cannot be trusted and unlike some ostrich Democrats they will not be shy about screaming that fact from the hilltops:

Obama was a relative moderate on the war during his first year in the Senate. He gave one speech against the war in 2002, but by the time it became clear he would face no serious challenger in his Senate race, he cooled his rhetoric, and even spoke out against timetables for withdraw. When he arrived in Washington, he waited 18 months before making his first floor speech on Iraq. Then Obama began his campaign for the presidency. Playing to the Democrartic party’s antiwar base, Obama pledged to withdraw troops regardless of the facts on the ground. He opposed the surge, and even warned that it would make the violence worse. And as progress became apparent, he stubbornly refused to recognize the gains our troops were making.

But Obama is a man of change. Just in the last week he dropped his opposition to telecom immunity, his support for handgun bans, his pledge to take public financing and renegotiate NAFTA–all core issues for Obama, or they were supposed to be. So what issue will he shift on next? After looking at the numbers from yesterday’s Quinnipiac battleground polls, we’re betting Iraq. It turns out that Americans as a whole aren’t nearly so eager for surrender as the left-wing of the Democratic party, and Obama isn’t much for staking out unpopular positions.

The left should brace itself: Obama’s going to be pro-surge, pro-troops, and pro-victory by this time next month.

Tough words. But as we know, Obama can’t be trusted.

* * *

Obama is so desperate now that he realizes the power of Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton supporters that he will even wear a tie which matches the color of Hillary’s clothes. But that is now. This was last week:

Two sources said that Obama’s comments came after Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.), a Clinton backer, told the Illinois senator that the Democratic Party needs time to heal.

“I bit my tongue many times. Many times. I bit my tongue many times during this campaign,” Obama told his colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) last week during a private meeting. He repeated the “I bit my tongue” phrase three times during the meeting, the sources said.

The comments suggest that Obama believes that he did not unfairly attack Clinton but held back after feeling the sting of political barbs. [snip]

The caucus convened its members with Obama last week to heal some of the deep wounds from the campaign. It was a chance for Clinton CBC backers to unify behind their Democratic standard-bearer.

Sources say Obama was direct throughout the meeting but expressed some frustration with claims that it is going to take some time for the party to mend its wounds.

Obama ran a race-baiting, gay-bashing, women-hating campaign describing Hillary’s “claws” and Hillary attacking him at certain times of the month.

Obama flip-flopped and flim-flammed on gun control and the Second Amendment while attacking Hillary before this weeks flip-flop on his previous flip-flops.

* * *

Obama can’t be trusted. Obama is not qualifed to be president. And Obama is NOT electable. We Hillary Suporters will not vote for Obama. We Hillary Supporters will not support Obama in any way.

More than one in five who had backed the New York senator now plan to support Republican John McCain in the fall, a boost for McCain if those opinions hold. [snip]

Twenty-three percent of Clinton’s backers picked Republican John McCain over Obama. Of the rest, 16 percent were undecided, 5 percent were for independent candidate Ralph Nader and 3 percent said someone else.

The poll suggests the Clinton supporters are wary that he has enough experience to be president. Just 25 percent describe him as experienced, and that drops to 5 percent among those former Clinton backers who are not supporting Obama.

The poll responses also show Obama has more work to do to quell fears among voters like Kirstie Hartle of Rome, N.Y., a registered Democrat who has never supported a Republican presidential candidate. With Clinton out of the race, Hartle said, “I’m Republican all the way now.”

Given the closeness of the last two presidential elections and the considerable polling data pointing to yet another tight contest, this November’s election seems likely to be a squeaker.

Yes, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows Barack Obama ahead of John McCain by 12 points, and a Newsweek poll has Obama up by 15 points. But two polls aren’t a trend. A more recent three-night tracking poll, completed on June 24 by Gallup, has the race dead even at 45 percent each. A separate USA Today/Gallup poll has Obama up by just 6 points. And polls by Fox News; ABC News/Washington Post; Cook Political Report/RT Strategies; and Reuters/Zogby, all taken about the same time, have Obama ahead by 4 to 6 points. [snip]

A more likely scenario is that McCain or Obama wins narrowly: A hard-fought campaign is waged and nobody implodes; the popular and electoral votes might even split, as they did in 2000. [snip]

The questions about Obama’s experience are not unlike the ones about Reagan in 1980. In presidential trial heats, Obama is not polling as well as a generic Democrat. That may be partially because McCain is better liked or more respected than his Republican Party. But part of it may be reservations about whether Obama is ready for the nation’s highest office.

It isn’t that voters are sure that Obama is not ready. It’s just that they are not sure that he is ready.

Democrats who care about the issues, Democrats who care about winning – untie yourselves from unqualified, inexperienced, not trustworthy Barack Obama.

Barack Obama thinks he can become president if he raises enough money.

Obama is Big Media’s tool so he does not need to worry about being vetted. Obama thinks that now it’s all about the money.

Obama’s money well is running dry so Obama needs Hillary donors for new cash infusions.

Let’s discuss what this all means and what to do about it.

* * *

First, 2 short articles to document how in the bag Big Media is for Obama and the state of mind of Hillary’s big money Democratic donors:

(1) Obama is Big Media’s tool. Notice how in this New York Times article Obama’s flip-flop-flim-flams are described. The New York Times describes Obama’s noxious flip-flop-flim-flammery as a graceful dance. Big Media does not say Obama flip-flops. No, Big Media describes Obama’s flip-flop-flim-flammery as “a pragmatist’s shift toward center”, “calibrated positions on variety of issues”. If it was Hillary Big Media would be shouting “pander” and “flip-flop”. Obama’s flip-flops are “marked by artful leaps and turns”; Obama “has executed several policy pirouettes in recent weeks” . Obama’s nonsense press releases are called “Delphic”. Big Media tool Obama will not be vetted by Big Media.

(2) Last night’s fund raiser with the great Hillary Clinton and the race-baiting, gay-bashing, woman-hating B.O. did not go well.

ABC’s Kate Snow reports: The crowd’s mood was but strained but supportive at Thursday’s meeting between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and about 150 of Clinton’s top donors at a Washington hotel. [snip]

One major Clinton donor described it this way: “This felt like when your mom forces you to go visit your Aunt Ida and she has to pinch your cheeks and you’re sitting there in an uncomfortable suit and you can’t wait to leave.”

Another Clinton-leaning person who was in the room said after the meeting wrapped up that there is still “a lot of anger” toward Obama among Clinton’s wealthiest fans.

“It was pretty bad,” this source said. He said donors were joking that the scene was like “an Irish wake” and that you “could cut the air with a knife” it was so tense in the room.

“He better go back to the internet,” said one donor about the Democratic nominee’s fundraising tactics.

It’s Hillary Held Hostage . At last night’s hostage event Terry McAuliffe noted Hillary Clinton donors had raised $230 million dollars for Hillary. Also, Hillary slapped the boobishly unaware Obama – She lamented that the party had only won three of the last 10 elections. “That is a sobering thought,” she said, adapting her electability argument from the primary campaign.

* * *

For a long time we have urged a fundraisers strike against the Democratic? National Committee. We now additionally urge a fundraisers strike against the Democratic? National Convention and B.O.

Democratic big money donors are usually team players. Democratic big money donors do not like to oppose the Democratic Party. Democratic big money donors do not like to be “off the reservation” in any way. However we are seeing very encouraging signs and privately hearing from Democratic big money donors that many are joining the resistance.

“I am a good friend of Hillary’s,” she declared. “I’ve had her at my home, and I have always been there for her. I am here to tell you how angry and hurt I am and how hurt all Hillary supporters are by the sexist, disgusting way Hillary was attacked and pilloried by the media in this campaign. Until some acknowledgment of that is made, I am full of anger. I know the Democratic Party could have stopped it. I know Obama could have stopped it. But, everyone was silent and just let it happen and …”

Next up: a professor who took a full six minutes announcing her credentials and then said, “I used up my entire pension supporting Hillary. I went to 13 states and knocked on doors. I want everyone in this room to write in the name of Hillary Clinton on the ballot when they go to vote and …”

Another woman announced that she intended to launch a boycott of MSNBC. “I want all of you to sign my petition.”

The chairperson of “Women for Obama,” Becky Carroll, had flown in from Chicago and said she was tired. You’d be tired too with all that invective flying around the room. But Ms. Carroll couldn’t very well intervene, if catharsis was what was needed to unite Democratic women. Ms. Carroll was in a tough position – too tough to point out that Hillary Clinton had announced that her supporters should “take our energy, our passion, our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama …” These emotional outbursts — and there were several more — are just what male chauvinists say about woman’s incapacity to coolly assess a situation.

Even in the nasty anti-Hillary women hating articles the signs of resistance from long-time Democrats and big money Democratic donors can be seen.

Ricki Lieberman in her Electability Watch newsletter wrote (get Ricki’s newsletter by writing to rrlieberma@gmail.com):

There has been discussion about whether or not some of us who were invited should go to the finance meeting in DC on Thursday. I fully understand and appreciate the decision of some people to go. It is not mine – I am NOT going – but I actually do feel more confident knowing that a few others will be there to support Hillary – she has made it known through the primary season how much it means to her to go places and find familiar supportive faces, all the more so, I expect, now when she will be in chillier settings.

I know those who go will give Hillary the warmest most heartfelt welcome, and some may sit on their hands for BO. Some of us feel that he needs to know that she is our candidate and as of now he has done nothing to deserve support from her supporters. Further, he has not demonstrated that he is electable and can return Democrats to the White House, something we all want.

I think we all have to recognize that what follows will be a period of mixed messages, of ambiguities and uncertainties. There will be public and private positions and positioning. And perhaps even some mis or dis-information. Imagine!

The Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting raised $21.5 million last month. He had $31.5 million in the bank, up $10 million from the end of April.

Obama had his weakest fundraising month of the year. The Illinois senator’s campaign raised $21.9 million in May. The disclosure came a day after the Democratic candidate’s reversal on the question of whether he would take public financing for his presidential bid, a move which drew sharp criticism from McCain.

Obama’s campaign said it had $43.1 million in the bank at the end of the month, with debts of about $304,000.

McCain’s campaign said the Republican spent $11.6 million during May and ended the month owing $1.27 million, with $31.5 million in the bank. That figure is up $10 million from the end of April.

Obama’s fundraising figure for May is less than the $30.7 million he raised in April.

The Obama number above includes $10 million which is in general election funds which means Obama and McCain are now at financial parity. Of course the DNC has only $4.4 million while the RNC has $53.6 million. McCain can count on support from the RNC’s tens of millions. Obama will not get a penny from Howard Dean’s near insolvent DNC.

The Obama calculation is that his well of donations is already dry but that now he can tap Hillary supporters for the $300 million Obama will need for this election if the Superdelegates ignore the fact Obama is unqualified and unelectable and gift him the nomination.

Obama wants to spend money raised by Hillary Clinton supporters in order to intimidate John McCain. Obama has worked hard to forget that even when he outspent Hillary by 5-1, 4-1, 3-1 in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, California, etc., etc. Hillary still beat him.

McCain will beat Obama too no matter how much money Obama raises.

Obama is unelectable but believes if he outspends McCain 6-1 or 7-1 or more outlandish sums, then he can win. Obama could not win against Hillary when he outspent her 4-1 and Obama will not beat McCain if he only outspends McCain 4-1. That’s why Obama wants cash quickly from Hillary supporters.

Hillary Clinton’s Democratic donors must treat Obama with the same contempt Obama subjects Hillary Clinton and her supporters. Let Hillary spend the summer fundraising and taking her message to Americans. Let Obama raise his own cash from his internet dens of Hopium.

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

We were going to write today about Obama stabbing his DailyKook friends in the back on FISA. Obama’s FISA flip-flop-flim-flam however will come to final fruition later today – if Obama bothers to even vote on the FISA bill (he avoided the FISA votes on Wednesday).

In a landmark decision that returns the gun control debate to the forefront of the presidential race, the Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the District of Columbia’s restrictive ban on handguns and declared for the first time an individual right to possess a gun.

The D.C. gun ban had prohibited residents from keeping handguns inside their homes and required legal guns like hunting rifles to be registered and kept unloaded in a locked area. [snip]

“This issue is a big fat wedge in target states,” said Matt McDonald, a senior adviser to McCain, citing Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and West Virginia. “Obviously it is an issue where he is at odds with working-class voters.”

In the long term, McDonald said the McCain campaign planned to highlight Obama’s past stances on gun issues to “fit into the narrative that we are looking at for Barack Obama: one, that is he coreless and, two, he’s unwilling to stand up for issues that risk his political future.”

The Obama campaign, getting ready for an expected Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s gun control legislation, reverses a statement it put out last year that the ban was constitutional.

(The campaign now describes the statement as “inartful,” but it wasn’t ambiguous: “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.”)

Good ol’ Obama. Obama’s “new” politics are the old flip-flop-flim-flam we Democrats have, in some orange quarters, grown so used to.

What was Obama’s gun position hours ago, years ago, minutes ago, seconds ago, months ago, in the last interview, in the interview before last, in interviews yet to air?

Obama’s camp, walking back an earlier statement that the D.C. gun ban was constitutional, said it was “inartful” and didn’t reflect his views.

But a colleague points out that Obama took a question about the constitutionality of the gun ban from WJLA’s Leon Harris during the Potomac Primary, and didn’t dispute the characterization that he believes the ban is constitutional.

Here’s the exchange:

LH: One other issue that is of great importance to the people of the district here, is gun control. You said in Idaho here, recently, that “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

BO: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people – law-abiding citizens use if for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets, we are going to trace more effectively, how these guns are ending up on the streets, to unscrupulous gun dealers, who often times are selling to straw purchasers. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. Those are all approaches that I think the average gun owner would actually support. The problem is, that we’ve got a position, often times by the NRA that says any regulation whatsoever is the camel’s nose under the tent. And that, I think, is not where the American people are at. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.

The Obama campaign distanced itself Thursday from a statement made last year to the Chicago Tribune that “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.” Spokesman Bill Burton said that the statement “was not worded as well as it could have been” and that Obama believes that generally the Constitution “doesn’t prevent local and state governments from enacting their own gun laws.”

Notice the flam in Obama’s flim. Notice how Obama changes the topic. Obama issues a statement which says nothing on the issue, does not inform Americans at all about Obama’s position or lack of position. Obama merely, as usual, changes the subject.

In regard to Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, the Obama campaign released a statement saying, “As president, Barack Obama will continue to respect the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners, and for voters who have concerns about this issue, they will find real comfort in Sen. Obama’s record. But when it comes to health care and energy and other economic issues that many gun owners care about, Barack Obama offers a fundamental change, while John McCain offers more of the same.”

Translation of the Obama statement: You can trust on on health care, energy, economic issues about as much as you can trust us on gun issues – NOT AT ALL.

Will Obama seek a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court ruling? Will Obama swear to uphold the ruling and protect it? Who knows? The only thing we know about Obama is:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Will an Obama as (ugh) President appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn today’s ruling? Will an Obama as (ugh) President appoint Supreme Court justices who will uphold today’s Supreme Court ruling? Who knows? The only thing we know about Obama is

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

We know that Obama thinks small town America is bitter and clings to God and guns because of that bitterness. For Americans that support gun controls, for Americans that oppose gun control, for Americans that are bitter, for Americans that are sweet – this is only one thing you need to know about Obama:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Obama’s flip-flop-flim-flam is of long standing. If you can rely on anything from Obama is that he is a flip-flop-flim-flam man who will stab anyone in the back, thrown any and all friends and positions under the bus and that he is reliable only in his lack of trustworthiness.

During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion — positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign.

The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.

Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.

They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.”

But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.

As the Politico article so artfully stated: the questionnaires provide fodder to question Obama’s ideological consistency and electability.

The McCain campaign, like Hillary supporters with nose plugs which interfere with the inhalation of second-hand Hopium smoke, has noticed Obama cannot be trusted.

The Obama internet dens of Hopium will one day put their hookahs aside and realize their lives have gone down the rabbit hole.

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Primaries are usually about a political party choosing a candidate to run as its standard bearer in the general election. Sometimes though, the fights are about the identity of the political party itself.

In past fights over the identity of the political party, the fight was expressed as a “platform” fight. Opposing sides battled to insert a political program or view as a “plank” in the “platform”, the document outlining the party’s core political set of beliefs.

The candidate nominated to represent the party in the general election was and is expected to run on the set of beliefs outlined in the platform. Usually this was not a problem because the nominee had enough votes not only to seize the nomination but also to keep out troublesome “planks” from the “platform” and insert advantageous “planks”.

This election cycle is different however. This election cycle is about the character of the Democratic Party as well as about its core principles.

* * *

During the primary season, while Hillary Clinton was being trashed, while Hillary supporters were being trashed, while women were being trashed, not a word was heard from Democratic? Party leaders. Recently Howard Dean has said he was unaware of the trashing of Hillary because he does not have cable television. Uninformed Howard apparently has no other sources or methods of information gathering to apprise him of major news developments.

Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic Party claimed he was unaware of all the sexism during the primaries. Now however, that Howard presumes that his favorite, Obama, is the nominee, Howard is all over the sexism story. In fact just about everyone who remained silent while Obama race-baited, gay-bashed and women-hated is now tut-tutting that dastard sexism.

Dean/Obama/Brazille/Pelosi are now addressing the question of sexism (they have yet to denounce Obama for his sexist comments -or his race-baiting or his gay-bashing) as if they were Columbus on a newly mapped world.

The reason why Dean/Obama/Brazille/Pelosi are now referencing a tiny portion of what transpired during the primaries is simple: they want our votes.

Dean/Obama/Brazille/Pelosi along with oldtime and freshly minted Obama supporters who want Democrats to “fall in line” and support Obama are demanding that Hillary supporters “honor” Hillary by supporting Obama. Ain’t gonna happen.

Mothers are wise. Perhaps you have heard a parent say, or you yourself have said “If your friends jump off a cliff, (or out a window) will you jump too?” All our respect for Hillary guarantees is that when Hillary speaks, we listen. But we are not lemmings, we are not automatons, we do not live in dens filled with Hopium. We make up our own minds on who gets our votes.

If there was a mechanism whereby Hillary supporters could support the eventually nominee, whether that is Hillary or Obama or anyone else, and yet also have a way to remove those who stoked the race-baiting, gay-bashing and woman-hating of the primaries; a way to reject the ugly New Democratic Party Obama wants to create – perhaps then an argument could be made for voting for the Democratic nominee no matter who she or he is.

But that mechanism does NOT exist.

Dean/Obama/Brazille/Pelosi believe they have Hillary supporters by the ovaries. Dean/Obama/Brazille/Pelosi think there is no where else to go – that women and all Democrats will have to vote Democratic, that Democrats will have no choice but to support the Democratic nominee no matter what ugly deeds, however much cowardice, however many insults and injuries they authored.

They are wrong.

Obama has taught us how to vote “Present”. If Hillary is not the nominee, Hillary supporters that do not vote for McCain will either write in Hillary’s name – even if the vote is discarded – or simply NOT vote in the presidential race and only vote in down ticket races. Like Obama we will vote “Present”.

On the right hand side column we will continue to post our series Voting For Barack Obama. This series will detail, on an issue by issue basis why good Democrats should not vote for Obama.

We noted early in June that we would not vote for John McCain. Many Hillary supporters will vote for John McCain. Many Hillary supporters will vote for John McCain because they understand that as bad as McCain might be, Obama is simply not qualified to be president.

Obama can’t be trusted to run a 7-11, let alone a 9-11.

Other Hillary supporters know that the Democratic Party cannot be rewarded with votes. The recent cheers for Hillary from Obama supporters who either actively trashed Hillary (or stood silent) are attempts to dupe Hillary supporters into foolishly casting their self-respect aside and accepting the race-baiting, gay-bashing, woman-hating Obama.

Those that are now pretending to cheer Hillary, who ask Hillary supporters to “honor” her by voting for the unqualified Obama, will find out, at the ballot box, that we will not accept Obama nor Obama’s “new” Democratic? Party.

On Saturday, June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton suspended her historic campaign for President. To her 18 million voters, it may have seemed like an end, but we pledge to make it a beginning… a beginning of a movement to achieve the democratic and just country that Hillary has envisioned for America.

Hillary has spoken out for citizens who are too often invisible – children, the poor, the elderly, the working and middle class. She has spoken out and worked hard for universal health care, a strong economy, a clean planet, a stellar education system, an end to the war in Iraq and a sound foreign policy. She has built a broad and dedicated coalition of supporters and has energized millions of new voters – most notably women.

We stand together with her 18 million voters in pursuit of all of the following:

Bring us together by honoring Hillary Clinton and her supporters at the Democratic National Convention in Denver by:

Placing her name into nomination (following traditional protocol)

Ensuring a roll-call vote

Inviting her to speak, during prime-time, on August 26th, the 88th anniversary of Women’s Suffrage

Bring us together by adoption of policies on the Platform Committee that Hillary Clinton has championed.

Bring us together through reform of the primary and caucus system to reflect the basic principle of one person – one vote.

Bring us together through outspoken denunciation of all gender bias, racism and other forms of discrimination.

Bring us together by making a concerted effort to retire her campaign debt.

We are being asked to embrace Party Unity without the fair representation of Hillary Clinton and her 18 million voters. Once these requests have been addressed, we will give due consideration to calls for Party Unity. Party Unity requires bilateral action.

On Saturday, June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton suspended her historic campaign for President. To her 18 million voters, it may have seemed like an end, but I pledge to make it a beginning… a beginning of a movement to achieve the democratic and just country that Hillary has envisioned for America.

I stand together with Hillary Clinton’s 18 million voters to demand that Senator Obama and the Democratic Party:

Bring us together by seating 100% of the Florida and Michigan delegations in Denver with 100% of their votes, allocated in accordance with the popular vote of each state.

Bring us together by adopting policies on the Platform Committee that Hillary Clinton has championed.

Bring us together through reform of the primary and caucus system to reflect the basic principle of one person/one vote.

Bring us together through outspoken denunciation of all gender bias, racism and other forms of discrimination.

Bring us together by fairly and respectfully including Hillary and her supporters at the Democratic National Convention in Denver by, among other things, placing her name in nomination for President, conducting a roll call vote, and providing her a prominent speaking role during prime time on August 26th, the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage.

I own my vote. It does not belong to any party. It does not belong to any candidate. It does not belong to any mob that would impose its will on me. Only I can decide how to use my vote, and I can decide based on any criteria I choose. Therefore I pledge not to give my vote to anyone who does not earn it.

* * *

Our votes belong to each of us as individuals. Our votes are not for sale or barter. Our votes are like high denomination notes – we won’t buy something cheap with them. Obama cannot be trusted. Democratic? leaders such as Dean/Brazille/Pelosi are not to be trusted.

And by the way, have we mentioned that Obama is not qualified to be president and that Obama is not electable.

Obama’s dedicated internet dens of Hopium are experiencing what used to be known as “a bad trip”. The hallucinogenic Hopium has gone as bad as Obama’s promises to filibuster a FISA bill with telecom immunity included. The DailyKooks, Talking Pimps Memo, Arriana Huff n’ Puff (collectively, the PINO Big Blogs) are getting thrown under the bus by Obama. As Obama spanks them with every broken promise, they reflexively respond “Thank you sir – may I have another.”

Just think, we have two more months of Obama making fools of these fools and of himself.

* * *

Obama is not alone in making a fool of himself. Nancy Pelosi, of Dean/Obama/Brazille/Pelosi, is busy making a fool of herself and the DailyKooks crowd too. Nancy is pushing the FISA bill as a victory when anyone with any sense knows that the current FISA bill pushed by the Democratic Leadership is a big Republican victory. Here’s Nancy making a fool of herself regarding sexism and Hillary Clinton:

Lynn Sweet reports that Nancy Pelosi seemed loath to blame sexism for Clinton’s loss while speaking to reporters this morning — but also acknowledged its prevalance.

“Sen. Clinton has advanced the cause of women in government and her candidacy has been a very positive tonic for the country and had a very wholesome effect on the political process,” she said. “I really don’t know, I haven’t analyzed and the rest, I’m a victim of sexism myself all the time, but I just think it goes with the territory, I don’t sit around to say, ‘but for that.”

Pelosi, who has something of a strained relationship with some Clinton supporters and donors (and the Clintons themselves), also pointed to the elephant in the room. “I think her candidacy was a just a bright, bright moment for us and she may run again.”

The Obama campaign is not content with having a fool for a candidate and foolish supporters like Nancy. Now they want to turn Hillary donors into fools.

In a PowerPoint presentation, the Obama campaign is selling the foolishness that women will actually vote for Obama if he were ever to become the Democratic nominee. In the same PowerPoint presentation the Obama campaign wants Hillary donors to rescue the fools at the Democratic? National Committee. Apparently, the Democratic? convention is short on cash and the DNC is short on cash too. The Republicans have a lot of money ($53.6 million) while Howard Dean and his 46 state strategy is running low on cash ($4.4 million).

A reader sends over a copy of a power point presentation made by David Plouffe last Thursday in Chicago, which appears aimed by its content at Clinton donors.

It does, however, sound one alarm: The RNC’s huge cash advantage over the DNC, something Obama’s aides would like Clinton backers to help remedy with large contributions to the party committee.

The influential activist Ricki Lieberman (rrlieberma@gmail.com) suggests otherwise (and offers other good advice) at the new Together4Us site:

Like me, if you want a Democrat in the White House in November, HOLD ON. We are on an ELECTABILITY WATCH. For those of us who cannot even imagine BO as the Democratic nominee and who believe that to nominate BO is to elect McCain, the answer is still Hillary.

HRC delegates – please hold on.

Funders – please, no $ to BO or the DNC, not one penny! Abstinence! [snip]

Together we will fight against the hostile takeover of our party by the Obama, Pelosi, Dean and Reid coup. 18,000,000 of us can do it if we stay together and do not fragment.

For those of you who want to vet McCain, please wait, at least until after August 28. There will be time for all of us to make individual decisions depending on the honor or dishonor of the Democratic convention.

Ricki makes a strong case for Hillary:

I want a Democrat in the White House. At the Convention, the sole job of the delegates will be to select the person who is electable in November.

That person is Hillary Clinton. During the primary process BO did not “close the deal” with primary voters. The more voters got to know BO, the more votes Senator Clinton received. By the time she suspended, not ended, her campaign, she led in the popular vote, in the blue states and swing states needed to win the Electoral College, and in the polls against McCain. She won convincingly wherever one person one vote was the principle of the voting process; she did not prevail in the caucuses – one of the least democratic voting methods imaginable – no secret ballot, limited access, no absentee ballots…

Senator Clinton has the best, most progressive stance on issues of importance to Democrats – truly universal, affordable health care; sensible mortgage relief to avoid the dissolution of our communities; universal pre-k and greater access to high education; energy independence; investments in infrastructure, urban regeneration, stem cell research and other scientific explorations… she has the connections to and the admiration of the world leaders and populations desperate for strong leadership from the United States…

We know Senator Clinton’s record, her ability to bring people together, her intelligence, humor, and that she is a caring person who has worked unceasingly for women, children and families. We know that she understands the issues and nuances of the middle east and has been a proven friend of Israel and other democratic allies.

We know so little of BO, other than he rose meteorically from the south side of Chicago politics, and gives a good speech.

We know that he stood by silently as the media and his own campaign degraded women and the candidacy of Senator Clinton. We know that he encouraged undemocratic practices such as snatching votes and delegates in Florida and Michigan. We know that his associates and friends are not those we would be comfortable bringing home to mother.

Clinton delegates – please hold tight. Do not give up your seat or believe anyone who tells you that Hillary has conceded or ended her campaign. She has suspended her campaign. At a minimum, we must be sure that the Democratic platform reflects her values and programs. We want her to be nominated, speak and to have a roll call.

If BO is the nominee of the party, we will have plenty of time to decide if he has earned the 18 million votes and support of Clinton campaign volunteers.

If he has failed to “close the deal”, we will be there to remind the delegates that their only job is to nominate the ELECTABLE candidate in order to restore the White House to the Democrats.

* * *

When HillaryIs44 first published back in April 2007 there were few Hillary support sites. Today support for Hillary on the Internet is much more visible. Many Hillary supporters have started websites this year and more are published every day. A new truly progressive Democratic network of websites is being born.

One year ago, the Democrats predicted a joyful march toward victory in November. For various reasons, and to different degrees, Democrats are not all in the same frame of mind today. Our changed outlook about this election is not thanks to sour grapes or hurt feelings. It’s about genuine concern for the party and its future. It’s about the attitudes and values of the party’s leaders and leadership. It’s about whether those leaders – including Barack Obama – will take seriously the 18 million voters who supported his opponent, and whether he and the party will demonstrate sincere, lasting commitment to real party unity – not just unity built on political convenience.

Much has been asked of Hillary Clinton since she suspended her campaign. Already she has forcefully pledged to work for Obama and the party and, based on her extraordinary track record of supporting democratic candidates over the past 15 years, no one can doubt her commitment to the party’s nominee or the party’s goals. [snip]

So far, Senator Obama and the party leadership only appear willing to pay lip service to Hillary’s supporters, the issues she championed, or her place in the party leadership. All we have heard is that we better fall in line fast, and with no questions asked.

But we are not willing to fall into line without first getting some answers.

So, we ask the following questions of Senator Obama and the Democratic Party:

How are you going to ensure that Hillary Clinton plays a prominent role in the future of the party and our country?

When will you address the issues of concern to Hillary Clinton’s supporters?

How will the party reform its undemocratic nominating process and ensure a system that is one person/one vote

How will the Democratic Party redress sexism, and all forms of discrimination?

These questions are being asked, but the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party are not answering. The utter silence is troubling to many of us – so troubling that we cannot, at this moment, promise to vote Democratic in the Fall. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party need to understand that multitudes of people from every walk of life and every part of the country are asking these questions. In order to prove our numbers, I ask you to log onto www.together4us.com and sign the attached Pledge of Togetherness. Together, we hope to get answers from the Obama campaign and the Party. And, together, we hope to find the best avenue to pursue in the 2008 election. There is no commitment to act together, but only to ask our questions together. We can make the Democratic ticket stronger by getting clear answers that could energize millions of voters. Would you please help us get our questions answered? It will take 30 seconds to read and sign at www.together4us.com. A signature from you would be particularly powerful.

A lot of organizing is getting done by Hillary supporters every day. Different people will arrive at different decisions. At Big Pink our nominee is Hillary. We will not vote for an unqualified candidate who waged a race-baiting, gay-bashing, woman-hating campaign.

Women Stop Whining – This is an observation as well as a warning: Stop Whining – more and more women are NOT whining and instead organizing against the Democratic? Party, Big Media and Big Media tool Barack Obama.

The observation and warning applies to men who supported Hillary too. The observation applies to all who are revolted by the open displays of misogyny this campaign season. We address ourselves specifically to women because women are the on the ground workers, volunteers, of the Democratic? Party.

Many times over we hear via email and other contacts about how “upset” our correspondents are with what was done to Hillary and Hillary Clinton supporters. The answer is to go on strike this NOvember. To borrow a phrase from Nancy Reagan “Just Say NO”.

Democrats, especially Democratic big money donors, tend to fall in line very quickly once a nominee is known. Big money Democratic donors are a culturally “conservative” set of people. They do not like to “rock the boat”. It is heartening that influential, and very well connected donors such as Barbara Layton are still fighting for Hillary. Do not underestimate how important this is. The fight continues and there is much organizing behind the scenes right now. Big money Democratic donors are not alone in this fight. Millions of us are committed to Hillary as our nominee. Millions of us are otherwise committed to a NOvember strategy. It’s a people’s campaign. We will not go quietly.

As much as the Democratic? establishment trys to force feed Obama to the Democratic millions it will not work. Democratic women leaders going to the back of the bus won’t work. Whining won’t work either – if you think Obama is NOT qualified to be president, if you don’t like the race-baiting, gay-bashing, women-hating campaign Obama has run – Don’t vote for Obama. Go on strike. Don’t take your seat at the back of the bus. NOvember.

Obamamania?

Well, it might take awhile.

For sure, the 2,000 party activists attending the Ohio Democratic Party’s annual dinner tonight at the state fairgrounds are behind their presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

But after a prolonged and sometimes bitter primary battle against Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, some of the faithful are swallowing hard, opting for a slow embrace of Obama rather than a warm hug. [snip]

Some of the party members attending the Democratic dinner said Obama has work to do to reach out to Ohioans, especially in Appalachian Ohio and rural areas where Clinton and former President Bill Clinton have campaigned heavily. [snip]

Shirley Woodford, 60, an insurance saleswoman from Caldwell, supported Clinton in the primary and said she has “a few reservations” about Obama – especially whether he has enough experience to be president.

But Woodford said she plans to vote for Obama this fall because she thinks the country needs a change in direction and that voting for McCain wouldn’t be the answer.

“I can’t cut off my nose to spite my face,” Woodford said.

This is backwards thinking. If you think Obama is not qualified to be president – do not vote for him. If you want to fight against race-baiting, gay-bashing, and woman-hating – act like Rosa Parks did. Don’t go to the back of the bus.

This is John Forbes Kerry’s worst nightmare: He’s going to have to spend the summer campaigning . . . on the mainland.

Fall River, Chicopee, Haverhill, Lynn, Fitchburg – not a single one of those sweaty cities has any windsurfing worth a damn, not to mention a Ducati motorcycle dealer, damn, but Liveshot is going to spend the next three months pressing the flesh in those wretched burgs, searching in vain for a proper nouvelle cuisine brassiere while enduring the foul breath of the plebeians . . .

Stand by, Sen. Kerry, for an endless schedule of kielbasa festivals, parades, motorcycle rallies, town concerts, fireworks displays, questionnaires from special-interest groups and maybe even, gulp, a televised debate or two. Kerry’s already had to endure a Celtics playoff game. Instead of the Inn at Wauwinet, this summer Kerry will be dining at Coney Island Hot Dog in Worcester. Next thing you know, some beer-guzzling peasant in a No. 12 Patriots [team stats] jersey is going to be asking him about . . . baseball.

“These numbers signal vulnerability. In a perfect world, this would be a huge problem for John Kerry. The hook is, is there a candidate on the ballot who can beat him,” Professor David Paleologos, Suffolk University, said.

Hillary won Massachusetts with a large majority. Let’s remind Kerry and other Obama enablers remember that Hillary won the big Democratic states. Let’s play to our strengths. Make the Obama enablers sweat before and after the Denver convention. Make the superdelegates feel the heat from no volunteers, no campaign contributions – indeed opposition to their reelections.

Liz Lemon (a.k.a. Tina Fey) said what many are thinking: “There is an 80% chance in the next election that I will tell all my friends that I’m voting for Barack Obama but I will secretly vote for John McCain.”

The seal includes the same bald eagle as the actual presidential seal clutching an olive branch and arrows in its talons, but instead of a shield covering the center of the eagle’s body, the Obama version displays the campaign’s trademark “O.” Unlike the Presidential seal, which includes the words “Seal of the President of the United States” around the circumference, “Obama for America” and “www.barackobama.com” grace the top and bottom of Obama’s.

Finally, just above the eagle, in Latin, are the words – “vero possumus” – which translates to “yes we can,” the oft-heard chant at Obama rallies.

Very Pompous.

Why is Obama so overtly pompous? The pompous seal is a silly way to dress up in serious clothes a candidate who is callow, has no experience, and is not qualified to be president. If Obama wants a seal that reflects his campaign, try Barnum & Bailey.

Obama is not the first politician to make a spectacle of his pomposity. Republican Rehnquist, the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (isn’t that title pompous enough?) turned the robes of a Justice into a Gilbert & Sullivan costume:

He was the justice in stripes – four gold stripes on each sleeve of his black robe. In the sedate circles of the Supreme Court, that passes for a pretty wild fashion statement.

Rehnquist, a bit of a flashy dresser himself, added the stripes to his robe after an international conference of supreme court judges in Washington in the 1990s. He felt the American justices looked drab compared with some of their counterparts from other countries who wore elaborate, brightly colored robes and headwear to ceremonies in the main chamber of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Rehnquist, a fan of Gilbert & Sullivan operas, went to a community theater production of “Iolanthe” in suburban Washington, where the costume for the judge included the robe with gold stripes. He liked it and showed up in court in 1995 with the added fashion touch.

But aping a European leader like de Gaulle had its perils. One was trival and exposed Nixon only to ridicule. White House guards showed up for work one day looking like palace guards from Ruritania, wearing uniforms Nixon had ordered to make them appear more regal. Reporters guffawed so loudly that he was forced into an instant retreat. Those uniforms never made it to the Smithsonian; they were donated to a college marching band and, who knows, may have would up in a Gilbert and Sullivan production.

Nixon and Rehnquist restricted their pomposity to costumes, not Latin verses. Obama has yet to distribute uniforms or clown costumes to his supporters and campaign workers. Thus far Obama’s pomposity has been devoted to flowery words and Latin phrases.

Obama should stop being very pompous with his “vero possumus”.

If Obama wants some Latin on his logo we suggest Sic Transit Gloria – All Glory Is Fleeting.

The Dean/Obama/Brazille/Pelosi Democrats? cave in on FISA confirms vividly what we wrote yesterday:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

If we had a free press, Barack Obama would not exist politically. But we have a Big Media Party and its tool is Barack Obama – so Obama is free to bamboozle, distract and divide as much as Obama desires.

Democrats used to speak out against the malignant power of the Big Media Party. Tim Russert, Democrats understood, beat up on Democrats on his shows while enabling every Republican and every Republican initiative – from Social Security privatization to all the Bush lies on Iraq.

But no longer. Our hyper-restraint, upon hearing the news of the death of Tim Russert, met with hyperventilation in the DailyKooks-type PINO blogs and other Big Media outlets. We were accused of a lapse in manners for speaking ill of the departed by those who wanted to as quickly as possible sanitize Tim Russert’s malignant work.

Good manners and tastefulness, we were sure, would not stop creatures such as Chris Matthews from soliciting during the Russert funeral – we were not disappointed. We poked fun at the Borgia-like machinations we envisioned as the princes of Big Media backstabbed each other in the sure to come fight for succession to the Tim Russert throne. Here are some of our ruminations from Meet The Hypocrites:

Our first thoughts were vivid speculations on poor Chris Matthews. Matthews, we knew, was in Rome. We imagined a cursing, rabid Matthews demanding airplane tickets back to 30 Rock to do battle for Russert’s job. What bad luck for Chris Matthews – to be in Rome when the job he always wanted had just opened up. We knew that soon David Gregory’s name would be dragged through the mud by aspirants to Russert’s throne. Not since the time of Rodrigo Borgia would so much effort be made to capture a throne.

Olberman too, we were sure, would squeeze out some tears on air in order to make himself a contender for Russert’s throne. Chuck Todd, David Shuster, contenders all and targets all. In days to come we will see the backstabbings at NBC and the entreaties to Jack Welch and Jeff Zucker flower.

The fight for Russert’s throne we knew would be particularly vicious. And have no doubt, it is a throne they are fighting for. The Big Media Party does not see itself as reporting the news, Big Media sees itself as shaping the news. Big Media considers itself The News. That is why we are witnessing an ostentatious wall-to-wall coverage on the airwaves of the death of someone most people barely knew or cared about.

Although MSNBC and NBC officials are flatly denying the allegations, the New York Post on Friday reported that Keith Olbermann is threatening to quit if he’s not promoted to host “Meet the Press.”

The Post also claimed that Chris Matthews was actually heard lobbying for the job during Wednesday’s memorial service for Tim Russert.

As reported at the Post’s “Page Six” column (h/t TVNewser):

“Matthews was heard loudly discussing what seemed to be his strategy for landing Russert’s “Meet the Press” show at Wednesday’s memorial reception for the NBC Washington bureau chief at the Kennedy Center in DC. After Brian Williams, Carl Bernstein, David Gergen, Barbara Walters and NBC brass eulogized their friend, Matthews huddled with an unidentified “agent type” and seemed to be plotting.

According to our spy, “Chris, with his loud voice, was going over a pitch for Tim’s job. He was saying, ‘You know, Tim’s thing was this, and my thing is that.’ It was unbelievably tacky.” […]”

Meanwhile, Matthews’ MSNBC cable cohort Olbermann, who was also at the memorial, is “threatening to quit if he isn’t installed as Russert’s replacement,” another insider said. “I know, it sounds ludicrous, but, then, Keith Olbermann is ludicrous.”

The DailyKooks-type PINO blogs fell right in line in praise of Russert. Only a very few, select, intelligent, blogs remembered the old pre-Dean/Obama/Brazille/Pelosi Democratic contempt for Russert and the Big Media Party:

In fact, Russert “always said” a lot of things about himself–about his life; about his upbringing; about his father; about his birth neighborhood; about his own modesty; about his career. The things he said were almost always self-flattering and, once he became the nation’s most powerful journalist, endless flunkies fell into line, eager to repeat his stories.

“endless flunkies” describes the PINO blogs well.

The PINO blogs wept when Russert died. The PINO blogs joined the self-worship of Big Media broadcasts. But…

As far as we know, Russert was as decent a person, within the group, as friends and colleagues all say he was. But:

He pretty much got it wrong, in the past sixteen years, about who “the phonies”were. (He chased around after both Clintons and Gore—and largely knuckled to Cheney and Bush.)

He pretty much got it wrong about Social Security, his adopted pet issue. (He constantly cited irrelevant data while forcing the issue into every discussion. To see him trashing Candidate Gore for daring oppose partial privatization, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/20/02.)

And Russert pretty much got it wrong on Iraq, the policy challenge of his time. For all his fairness, civility and Jesuitical brilliance, Russert produced nothing of value in the year leading up to the war. And he embarrassed himself—we all do so at some point—when Bill Moyers asked him about this matter in an interview last year (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/19/08).

Tomorrow night instead of the male candidates called to account to their personal attacks against Hillary we will not be surprised if instead Hillary is attacked again for allegedly daring to raise the “gender card”. Instead of the sustained personal attacks against Hillary being the issue, the victim will be blamed. Russert’s misbehaviors and distortions in the previous two debates, of course, will not be mentioned.

In that same article, we quoted Geraldine Ferraro, who named Tim Russert as Hillary’s main opponent:

Barack Obama has said that, when he was attacked for 15 minutes in a prior debate, he didn’t raise his race as an issue. Fifteen minutes is not two hours, though, and I feel sure that, if Senator Obama had been subjected to so sustained an attack, plenty of other people would be talking about racism, even if he wasn’t. But then, as I’ve said before, in this country it’s still O.K. to be sexist, but not to be racist.

I’ll be watching the coming candidate debates on CNN, and if the Republican front-runner, Rudolph W. Giuliani, is the sole subject of two hours of personal attacks, I’ll rethink my position.

It will help if, next time out, John Edwards and Senator Obama stick to substantive policy disagreements with Senator Clinton. If they can’t, they’ll only prove themselves unworthy of our party’s nomination.

ABC News noted that In the two weeks since the last Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton has seen her rivals garner increased media attention with sharp rhetoric and pointed jabs at her candidacy and character.

Barack and John did not stick to “substantive policy disagreements” at that debate and yes they are “unworthy of our party’s nomination”.

Hillary also suggested that she would soon be making public statements about the media coverage of the campaign, as well as the ways “women were discussed,” saying that she would “be doing more on that as we go forward.” . . . Hillary . . . suggested that she’d be making public statements soon about the media’s treatment of her candidacy.

Speaking of the campaign, Hillary noted that “there were a lot of other aspects to it that people are asking about. A lot of real concerns about some of the ways we were portrayed in the media and the way women were discussed.” “I will be doing more on that as we go forward,” Hillary said.

We audaciously hope that Hillary will speak out against Big Media power. We audaciously hope that Hillary will, for once, put aside some of her wonderful graciousness and point out the inciting and exploitation of sexism and woman-hating by Barack Obama himself and the Obama campaign.

“There’s a reason for the resentment. The level of dismissive and condescending comments, not just about me—what do I care?—but about the people who support me and in particular the women who support me, has been shocking. Shocking to women and to fair-minded men. But what has really been more disappointing to me is how few voices that have a platform have spoken out against it. And that’s really why you seen this enormous grassroots outrage. There is no outlet. It is rare that you have anybody on these shows or in a position of responsibility at major publications who really says, ‘Wait a minute! What are we talking about here? I have a wife! I have a daughter! I want the best for them.’ ”